Active Users
Currently 0 user(s) logged on.

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required
Email Format


Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Red Mass Group on Facebook



About Us
FAQ
How To Format Posts
Email Us
RSS Feed
RMG Store
Fair Use Policy
RMG Mobile Site

Search




Advanced Search


Event Calendar
November 2014
(view month)
S M T W R F S
* * * * * * 01
02 03 04 05 06 07 08
09 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 * * * * * *
<< (add event) >>

Blog Roll
Massachusetts Conservatives Boston Maggie
The Capitol View Live
Critical Mass
FreeRepublic - Massachusetts
Miss Kelly

Mass Video Blogs Catch of the Day Video

Moonbats
Blue Mass Group
Left in Lowell
Hester Prynne
Mass Marrier

Non-Partisan Massachusetts Blogs
Preti Minahan
Mass Politics Profs

Libertarians
Garrett Quinn
Beacon Hill Institute Blog
Pioneer Institute Blog
Campaign For Liberty
Cato at Liberty
Young Americans for Liberty

Hyper Local
My Dedham
Universal Hub
View From Plymouth Rock
Worcester Herald

Mass. Media
The Lone Republican
Pundit Review
Dan Kennedy
WGBH.org's "The Scrum"
WGBH's Adam Reilly
WGBH's "Beat The Press">
WGBH's "Greater Boston">
David Bernstein at Boston Magazine
NECN's "Broadside: with Jim Braude"

National
Ace of Spades
Big Hollywood
Daily Beast
Daily Kos
Daily Paul
Flynn Files
Hot Air
Little Green Footballs
National Review
Reason - Hit & Run
Red State





Let's agree that Personhood Amendment is too extreme

by: John Howard

Sat Nov 10, 2012 at 19:42:37 PM EST


I'd like to know what all the Libertarians and Fiscal Conservatives think about the Personhood Amendment movement. I am a social conservative, but I think the Personhood movement goes way too far in giving legal personhood and rights to fertilized eggs and un-implanted embryos.

Wouldn't it be nice to find something we agree about? We do agree about that, right?

John Howard :: Let's agree that Personhood Amendment is too extreme
Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

EdFactor and others (0.00 / 0)
I'm making a serious suggestion: that the culprit in scaring away lots of voters wasn't support for marriage or being pro-life, but the extreme "life begins at fertilization, no exceptions for rape or incest" position, AKA the "Personhood" movement, the Akin-Ryan Sanctity of Life bill, the Human Life Amendment proposal. The view that embryos are human beings and there should be no exceptions even for rape victims and possibly no use of IVF or IUD's or Emergency Contraception is what led to the ridicule of Akin and Mourdock and scared people off Romney. Actually Romney himself said he would "absolutely" support an amendment declaring that life begins at fertilization:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/...

So how about instead of insisting we support same-sex marriage and stop being pro-life, we settle on getting rid of that extreme position?

I want to confirm that you guys think the proposal to make personhood and life begin at fertilization is wrong, bad, and should certainly not be part of the Republican platform.


Not a top-of-mind issue (0.00 / 0)
Mr. Howard -

I think the personhood amendment is not known by most people in America. In a few states, it was big news, as they wanted it in those states. Yes, it was briefly brought up during the presidential primary - outside debates. (My man, Jon Huntsman, thought it wemt too far.)

I actually think that embryos are people. I believe life begins at conception. My children stared being my children at conception.

However, I would not support the amendment because it will surely have all kinds of unintended consequences that I really don't want to risk.

So, yes, I think that almost all Americans, if they were educated about the ramifications of this amendment, would oppose it.

The only reason I think that people have supported it is because they think it will be yet another sneaky way to undermine the ability to have an abortion.  


Thanks for quick response (0.00 / 0)
That's remarkable that you of all people promote such an extreme and untenable and unpopular belief. It's good that do not support such an amendment, but you need to be more vocal about rejecting it, and not say you agree with it in principle.

Whether most people know about the Personhood movement per se is irrelevant, because they know all about the implications. If they have heard of Todd Akin, they know about Personhood. He was defending his radical beliefs when he made the rape comment. Those radical beliefs are what Rachel Maddow attributed to all Republicans. People think Republicans are insane for thinking that living persons are killed every time an embryo is created but fails to implant before a woman has her period. It's just a wrong, incorrect, and extreme belief that's vindictive and irrational and mean. Life does not begin until the heart starts beating which happens shortly after implantation. And it ends when the heart beat stops. Embryos are not ensouled until then. Embryos are miraculous, formed through a biological process and chemical reaction guided by God/Evolution, but are not living beings until they start pumping their own blood with their own heart, that's when they develop a will that is life itself. Some people define "conception" at implantation, not fertilization, others, like me, define it conceptually, as the rational belief that a new person will arrive. But it is a different word and is not a synonym for fertilization.

All Republicans should have said that Personhood went too far. That was the problem.

How about my suggestion, that we move a more acceptable moderate majority by rejecting those extreme amendments and goals, instead of by embracing gay marriage?


[ Parent ]



Stat Counter

 
Red Mass Group is owned and operated by Robert Eno. It is not authorized or paid for by any candidate or committee.
HOME
Powered by: SoapBlox